The original $2 million cost estimate for the demolition and removal of the bridge has now proven to be inaccurate.

The absolute level of the cost increases associated with disposal of contaminated bridge members is at this point, unknown.

An independent financial report tabled at the last council meeting has indicated that council's current financial position will in all likelihood continue to deteriorate for some years to come.

Given the above, at what point in terms of all-up costs does it make sense to reconsider the original premise that the bridge must go?

The Allen Truss bridge was designed so that each and every member is redundant, and can be replaced without jeopardizing the integrity of the remaining structure.

It is this design feature that would allow the costs of repairs and ongoing maintenance to be spread over a number of years, considerably easing the pressure on council's finances.

So the scene is set for an ever increasing cost of demolition, which is now likely to exceed the cost of repair and maintenance.

It may be that the cost of demolition far exceeds the cost of repair.

How can such a decision be justified?

It is incumbent on council's officers to do a thorough cost analysis of both alternatives.

Bruce Norton

Wagga